View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 10-50 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |